Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Agent23]

Says the copenik who ignores anything not pro-Russia.

Also, Ghost of Kiev likely does exist, because you can still qualify as an ace-in-a-day if a few of your kills are attack helo's or VDV transport planes, not just other fighters.

However, I know nothing any of us say is going to get through to you, and you will keep coping/shilling for Putin-senpai until reality whack's you over the head.

Look, I already shared my opinion with whoever the other poster that decided to bitch about my Ukrospam skepticism was, why do you think that you can change my mind regarding anything?
Frankly, your post says nothing that I haven't heard already, and I still don't care.

 

[Bacle]

Look, I already shared my opinion with whoever the other poster that decided to bitch about my Ukrospam skepticism was, why do you think that you can change my mind regarding anything?
Frankly, your post says nothing that I haven't heard already, and I still don't care.

Oh, that's simple; because clowning on copenik's is fun and you are pretty much the biggest copenik here.

 

[sillygoose]

You always believe what the US government says?

I also find it hilarious that the Pentagon feels the need to give briefings on a war they are not involved in, instead of you know, explaining how they lost to the Taliban and can't win the wars assigned to them.

How else can you distract from the country collapsing internally?

 

[Battlegrinder]

and here you go some videos of its offroad performance:

That seems about on par with what I'd expect a civilian vehicle to do, but those also seem like they're putting in the best light they can, it can be much worse:



Ten minutes in and it gets stuck on a fairly mild uphill road, and while he's eventually able to get it up the slope he specifically notes the issue was an underpowered engine.

The UAZ doesn't strike me as a good off road platform, for that exact reason. Yes, it can manage rough terrain, because it's has a lot of ground clearance and....I won't say good suspension given how bouncy it seems to be, but it at least has flexible suspension. But it doesn't have the horsepower to make the most use out of the chassis, and while unstated, the fact that it's a van with a van sized wheel base and a van's height means it's center of gravity is higher and it's at much greater risk of rollover (which is probably why no one else was crazy enough to try and build an off road Scooby-Doo Van).

The UAZ has no western military equivalent except maybe TMPs.
Which are non tactical vehicles used for Garrison duties.

We don't have a tactical assault Scooby-Doo Van, no. But the actual role it fills seems to be the same one we use humvees or L-ATVs for, so they would seem to be the equivalent vehicle.

Except they have armor, bulletproof glass, guns, twice the ground clearance, three times the horsepower, a wider wheel base, etc.



(Yes, Russia stans, I know the Russians have a more direct equivalent. That's is yet another reason their little Scooby-Doo Van shouldn't be anywhere near the frontlines).

But here we are arguing over why a UAZ is a good vehicle

Most of us don't have the first clue on how to evaluate russian intelligence capabilities or the proper use of thermal vision equipment.

"Is this car good" is at something we have some experience with.

 

[Agent23]

Oh, that's simple; because clowning on copenik's is fun and you are pretty much the biggest copenik here.

So basically you are reeing at someone who doesn't give a shit about your opinion because you wait to get some exercise for your vocal cords, or in this case, fingers.
Well scream yourself raw and develop crippling finger pain, your pointless posts are not something I really give a shit about.
Hell, you aren't even entertaining like @Marduk is.

 

[Bacle]

So basically you are reeing at someone who doesn't give a shit about your opinion because you wait to get some exercise for your vocal cords, or in this case, fingers.
Well scream yourself raw and develop crippling finger pain, your pointless posts are not something I really give a shit about.
Hell, you aren't even entertaining like @Marduk is.

I'm not ree'ing, I'm laughing smugly and getting some kicks out of how other places are holding you up as the top copenik of TS.

 

[Agent23]

That seems about on par with what I'd expect a civilian vehicle to do, but those also seem like they're putting in the best light they can, it can be much worse:



Ten minutes in and it gets stuck on a fairly mild uphill road, and while he's eventually able to get it up the slope he specifically notes the issue was an underpowered engine.

The UAZ doesn't strike me as a good off road platform, for that exact reason. Yes, it can manage rough terrain, because it's has a lot of ground clearance and....I won't say good suspension given how bouncy it seems to be, but it at least has flexible suspension. But it doesn't have the horsepower to make the most use out of the chassis, and while unstated, the fact that it's a van with a van sized wheel base and a van's height means it's center of gravity is higher and it's at much greater risk of rollover (which is probably why no one else was crazy enough to try and build an off road Scooby-Doo Van).

As I said, it is usually used for an ambulance, probably as transport for small group of personnel, and resupply.Russia is huge, and such equipment works well in rural areas with bad or no roads.

Also, the UAZ is a lot older than US humvees, so maybe a better comparison would be those Army Jeeps?

 

[Battlegrinder]

Oh, that's simple; because clowning on copenik's is fun and you are pretty much the biggest copenik here.

So basically you are reeing at someone who doesn't give a shit about your opinion because you wait to get some exercise for your vocal cords, or in this case, fingers.
Well scream yourself raw and develop crippling finger pain, your pointless posts are not something I really give a shit about.
Hell, you aren't even entertaining like @Marduk is.

I'm not ree'ing, I'm laughing smugly and getting some kicks out of how other places are holding you up as the top copenik of TS.

Guys, maybe take it down a notch. Disagreement and discussion are fine, but let's try to avoid winding up other posters just for amusement.

 

[Agent23]

I'm not ree'ing, I'm laughing smugly and getting some kicks out of how other places are holding you up as the top copenik of TS.

How funny, I am laughing at your gullibility for believing the MSM and the Ukis, and the sheer volume of pointless posts you produce.

 

[Agent23]

Guys, maybe take it down a notch. Disagreement and discussion are fine, but let's try to avoid winding up other posters just for amusement.

K, didn't see your response, and while I don't care for Backle's opinions, I would rather we have more space for what is really important, namely wargear waifus!

 

[Battlegrinder]

As I said, it is usually used for an ambulance, probably as transport for small group of personnel, and resupply.Russia is huge, and such equipment works well in rural areas with bad or no roads.

I'm sure there are lots of places in russia where a cheap, dirt simple vehicle that can handle sub par roads or occasionally no roads are useful.

I'm less sure that the Ukrainian warfront is one of those places. If Russia needs a small off road capable ambulance (which is not the variant of the UAZ that's been seen in use, BTW), there's an ambulance version of the GAZ Tiger, why aren't they using that?

Also, the UAZ is a lot older than US humvees, so maybe a better comparison would be those Army Jeeps?

The army jeeps that were rightfully rejected as being unsuitable for modern warfare back in the 70s and that the US army doesn't have anymore?

The fact that Russia is still using equipment of that vintage and capability in frontline service is precisely what's so eyebrow raising.

 

[Agent23]

The fact that Russia is still using equipment of that vintage and capability in frontline service is precisely what's so eyebrow raising.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Like @Butch R. Mann explained.
The Russians, btw have their own Humvee equivalents, but IMHO the UAZ breadloaf vans can still be of use hauling supplies and people behind friendly lines and in shitty terrain.

 

[WolfBear]

Ukrainian rebel region Luhansk may vote to join Russia

The Russian-backed eastern Ukrainian rebel region of Luhansk said on Sunday it may hold a referendum on joining Russia, drawing a warning from Kyiv that any such vote would have no legal basis and trigger a stronger international response.

www.reuters.com

 

[Battlegrinder]

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Like @Butch R. Mann explained.
The Russians, btw have their own Humvee equivalents, but IMHO the UAZ breadloaf vans can still be of use hauling supplies and people behind friendly lines and in shitty terrain.

Using an unarmed van for transportation "behind friendly lines" is a very WW2 era concept, when front lines were much more fixed and concrete then they are today, particularly in Ukraine where people have been running around behind the lines since the war started, NATO is openly arming the Ukrainian's to fight a guerrilla war, etc.

Yes, the Scooby-Doo Van can be used for that role, but it's a clearly inferior choice for it even in "safe" rear areas. If Russia is using them anyway despite that, it suggests that they don't have enough modern equipment to do the job (which fits with other reports, such as thier communication issues, outdated weapons on the front, modern rifles with no modern optics, etc), all of which suggests that the Russian army is in worse shape than Russia claims.

If Russia cannot get modern equipment into the hands of even units fighting in an extremely important operation where time is critical (as every day brings more and more NATO weapons to Ukraine while Russia depletes equipment it cannot replace), that raises serious questions about the overall state of the Russian army.

 

[Agent23]

Using an unarmed van for transportation "behind friendly lines" is a very WW2 era concept, when front lines were much more fixed and concrete then they are today, particularly in Ukraine where people have been running around behind the lines since the war started, NATO is openly arming the Ukrainian's to fight a guerrilla war, etc.

Yes, the Scooby-Doo Van can be used for that role, but it's a clearly inferior choice for it even in "safe" rear areas. If Russia is using them anyway despite that, it suggests that they don't have enough modern equipment to do the job (which fits with other reports, such as thier communication issues, outdated weapons on the front, modern rifles with no modern optics, etc), all of which suggests that the Russian army is in worse shape than Russia claims.

If Russia cannot get modern equipment into the hands of even units fighting in an extremely important operation where time is critical (as every day brings more and more NATO weapons to Ukraine while Russia depletes equipment it cannot replace), that raises serious questions about the overall state of the Russian army.

As I said, they are also used as ambulances.
I also think that you are making way too big of a deal out of them popping up here and there in a support role.

 

[TheRejectionist]

So how the peace process going in Turkey?

 

[Battlegrinder]

As I said, they are also used as ambulances

Do you have any evidence of an ambulance variant UAZ being used in Ukraine?

Also, given how bumpy and bouncy those things are while going offroad, I'm pretty sure they're also a bad choice to use an ambulance over something more modern.

I also think that you are making way too big of a deal out of them popping up here and there in a support role.

I disagree, I think the issue is you're just not on the same wavelength as other posters when it comes to what you view as an acceptable standard for a military.

Can you imagine what people would say if during Iraq, the US or British forces were using a bunch of WW2 era museum prices, or if during the bombing campaign in Libya the French dug up some old 50s prop plane to drop bombs, and justified it as being ok because it was safe airspace and Libya didn't have any SAMs, so using old planes that still worked was fine?

 

[Agent23]

Do you have any evidence of an ambulance variant UAZ being used in Ukraine?

Also, given how bumpy and bouncy those things are while going offroad, I'm pretty sure they're also a bad choice to use an ambulance over something more modern.

It is one of the top use cases for them overall, so I can't imagine why not.

Can you imagine what people would say if during Iraq, the US or British forces were using a bunch of WW2 era museum prices, or if during the bombing campaign in Libya the French dug up some old 50s prop plane to drop bombs, and justified it as being ok because it was safe airspace and Libya didn't have any SAMs, so using old planes that still worked was fine?

Um, drones are basically 50s level of tech aside for the fact that they are pilot-less and have some improved guidance tech.

If there is nothing that can contest the airspace - then why not?

There is no difference if a bomb is dropped from an old B-52, which is a 70 year old aircraft, or from a predator big remote-controlled turboprop, or from an F-22 or B1 or B2, as long as it gets to where it is going.

Clearly we have different views about war.

 

[Zachowon]

That seems about on par with what I'd expect a civilian vehicle to do, but those also seem like they're putting in the best light they can, it can be much worse:



Ten minutes in and it gets stuck on a fairly mild uphill road, and while he's eventually able to get it up the slope he specifically notes the issue was an underpowered engine.

The UAZ doesn't strike me as a good off road platform, for that exact reason. Yes, it can manage rough terrain, because it's has a lot of ground clearance and....I won't say good suspension given how bouncy it seems to be, but it at least has flexible suspension. But it doesn't have the horsepower to make the most use out of the chassis, and while unstated, the fact that it's a van with a van sized wheel base and a van's height means it's center of gravity is higher and it's at much greater risk of rollover (which is probably why no one else was crazy enough to try and build an off road Scooby-Doo Van).



We don't have a tactical assault Scooby-Doo Van, no. But the actual role it fills seems to be the same one we use humvees or L-ATVs for, so they would seem to be the equivalent vehicle.

Except they have armor, bulletproof glass, guns, twice the ground clearance, three times the horsepower, a wider wheel base, etc.



(Yes, Russia stans, I know the Russians have a more direct equivalent. That's is yet another reason their little Scooby-Doo Van shouldn't be anywhere near the frontlines).



Most of us don't have the first clue on how to evaluate russian intelligence capabilities or the proper use of thermal vision equipment.

"Is this car good" is at something we have some experience with.

Not comparable to Humvees.
They are at least multiuse and not a Scooby-Doo van.
Plus we are getting rid for something better

 

[BlackDragon98]

Are the UAZ vans being used by Russia or by the LPR/DPR?

Because the Donbassers are pretty underequipped and they've been spotted using Mosin Nagant rifles and PPS-43 SMGs.